Putul Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67841 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2024 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

Putul Devi Wife of Prakash Rawat Resident of Village - Satgama, P.S. - Jamui, District - Jamui 2.

Sunni Kumar @ Sunny Kumar Rawat Son of Sanjay Rawat Resident of Village - Satgama, P.S. - Jamui, District - Jamui 3.

Sachin Kumar Son of Ajay Rawat @ Vijay Rawat Resident of Village - Satgama, P.S. - Jamui, District - Jamui 4.

Jitu Kumar Son of Jageshwar Rajak Resident of Village - Satgama, P.S. - Jamui, District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Sucheta Yadav ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-09-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 333, 188, 504, 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 37 & 45 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have antecedent of one case and petitioner no.1 is a woman and the informant alleges that police received information that at village Satgam, a fight had ensued in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67841 of 2024(2) dt.24-09-2024 2/3 between two communities, accordingly, the police reached the place of occurrence, where accused persons including the petitioners had assembled from before and they started abusing the police and even pelted stones, in which some police personnel were injured and it was found that most of the people in the crowd were in a drunken condition.

4. The learned counsel submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is next submitted that since the petitioners stay close from the place of occurrence, as such, on hearing that a ruckus has been created they also went to the place of occurrence to see what was happening when they came to be implicated. It is next submitted that the allegations are also general and omnibus in nature i.e. no specific allegation is alleged against the petitioners.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67841 of 2024(2) dt.24-09-2024 3/3 each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No.185/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. It is made clear that the learned trial court before accepting the bail bonds of the petitioners shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners and in the event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of more than one case, in that event, the present anticipatory bail order shall not be given effect to.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T